FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUKHNAND SINGH; KULWINDER No. 08-72472
KAUR; ABHINAV SINGH SUNNAR,
Agency Nos. A098-150-769
Petitioners, A098-150-770
A098-150-771
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 3, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Sukhnand Singh (Singh), a native and citizen of India, and his derivative
beneficiaries Kulwinder Kaur and Abhinav Singh Sunnar (collectively Petitioners),
seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) rejection of their claims
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Torture (CAT). Petitioners assert claims as to both India and the Philippines. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not conduct impermissible fact-finding when it examined the
IJ’s findings and the record to determine that Petitioners did not qualify for relief.
See Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 919, 921–22 (9th Cir. 2012) (concluding that
the BIA properly deferred to the IJ’s fact-finding when it considered the IJ’s
findings and the record). Similarly, we find nothing in the record that suggests that
the BIA did not consider all relevant evidence during its review. See Cole v.
Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that a “general statement that
the agency considered all the evidence before it may be sufficient” (internal
quotation marks and brackets omitted)).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s findings that Singh is ineligible for
asylum because he was firmly resettled in the Philippines before arriving in the
United States and that Petitioners failed to establish that one of the exceptions to
firm resettlement applied to them. See Maharaj v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 961, 967
(9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (holding that a finding of firm resettlement is reviewed
for substantial evidence).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners are
ineligible for withholding of removal from India. Although it is a close call
2
whether Singh established a nexus between the police activity and the protected
ground of imputed political opinion, the record does not compel us to conclude that
the Indian police were engaged in illegitimate activity when they arrested Singh.
See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1044–45 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that the
petitioner bears the burden of showing a police investigation has no “bona fide
objective”).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners are
ineligible for CAT relief from India. The record does not compel the conclusion
that the abuse Singh endured in India constituted torture. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2);
see Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1200–01 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding that no
torture occurred when the petitioner was arrested and beaten on four occasions).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s dismissal of Petitioners’ claims for
asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protections from the Philippines. Singh
did not show that the record compels the conclusion that the robbery or repeated
threats in the Philippines were on account of a particular social group or his race or
religion. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1486–87 (9th Cir. 1997). Moreover,
the events in the Philippines do not establish past persecution or support a well-
founded fear of future persecution. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177
(9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “[r]andom, isolated criminal acts perpetrated by
3
anonymous thieves do not establish persecution”). Likewise, the threats and
robbery are insufficient to support a claim for protections under CAT. See Gui v.
INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1222–23, 1230 (9th Cir. 2002) (concluding that repeated
harassment and threats, and two staged hit-and-run accidents did not constitute
torture).
The petition for review is DENIED.
4